tourny strategy?

philderby1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
derby
ive tried the tag style and got positive results (providing i dont go on tilt!) betfair has houely free rolls so im going to try just playing aa kk and qqs all in every time. granted il only play a hand every 30 minutes but i want to see the results lol stay tuned..
 

Bullajami

Dormant account
webmeister
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Location
Online
I used to play this way when I was multi-tabling cash games to work on my rollover for a poker bonus.

Chances of getting AA, KK or QQ as your starting cards:

For the first card you could get any A, K or Q in the deck, since there are 4 of each,there are 12 chances in 52.
For the second card you have to match the first, so there are only 3 matches in 51 remaining cards (all cards you have not seen are remaining cards).

(12/52) X (3/51) =
(3/13) X (1/17)=
3/221 =
once every 73.7 hands

Looks more like you'll get to play one hand every 60 minutes :)
I would also play AK-suited this same way. I got to play a few more hands and it held up about as well as QQ.

Keep us posted and Good Luck!
 

philderby1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
derby
going to try this with AK suited added, unless my stack becomes too low (-5 BB). been busy over the last couple of days. started taking it more seriously since watching mtts strategy videos in full and seeing how patience is rewarded time after time.
 

philderby1

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Location
derby
some good results so far, the problem is with betfairs hourly freeroll mtts you will get a table of 9 players and only 3 are playing so you never get a feel for how it would work on a full table. in the freedonks often enough many of the players will indeed go 'all in' with J 6 off suit which makes life easy but would they do it in a $2 tournament? having said that i played in a tournament on terminal poker only a $1 and at one stage every other hand was AK, KK AA, QQ, KQ think i doubled up three or four times with players calling all ins with nothing. im on a break from poker at the moment though i was getting a bit wrapped up in it lol
 

Nobunaga

Dormant Account
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Location
Cambridge ON
Poker

There are no easy ways to turn out the cash in online poker.I've seen enough runner runner situations, that would question the software that Pokerstars uses.

You still have to bluff right to get ahead, just like the best players do, to cover the good hands they do lose on or don't get enough dealt to them.

There's enough books written on this subject for you to buy online or at your local bookstore.

The time it takes to play these tournaments should be calculated into your profits.Time is something you can't get back in your life.

In $2 tournaments, I've had j8, suited connectors, 72, everything being all in against me, or even trying to bluff me out of hands.

The Russian gamblers have replaced the Americans on aggression in online poker, but if you play them strong, you can beat the other non-Russian players easier.

You're on the right track, just fine tune things and you could be winning $200 events.

Since this message, I won 3 hands using your suggestion of the all in shove, which I would have probably done, so I will give you thanks for that.

Your play could do well at low end cash games.

Nobunaga
 

lotusch

A little mix of Dutch and Irish
Joined
Jun 3, 2013
Location
Dún Dealgan
I used to play poker a lot,still love that game.
Made some overall profit out of it over the years but I found my gambling behaviour going more and more in the slots direction.
Might need to pick up my poker chips again and give it a go.
Problem is,it just asks much more time on the long run,especially if you play multi table tourneys and you want to finish within the money.
Slots can literarly give you a 1000x bet return in seconds or eat your bankroll within an hour while with poker (tournaments) it really can take some time before finishing in any decent money.

Back in time I played on Everest Poker and Pokerstars and also I would play real life tournaments in casino's or pubs in Holland.. :cool:
 

BMWSTACK

Ueber Meister
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Location
US
I used to play poker a lot,still love that game.
Made some overall profit out of it over the years but I found my gambling behaviour going more and more in the slots direction.
Might need to pick up my poker chips again and give it a go.
Problem is,it just asks much more time on the long run,especially if you play multi table tourneys and you want to finish within the money.
Slots can literarly give you a 1000x bet return in seconds or eat your bankroll within an hour while with poker (tournaments) it really can take some time before finishing in any decent money.

Back in time I played on Everest Poker and Pokerstars and also I would play real life tournaments in casino's or pubs in Holland.. :cool:

Yes if your going to continue to gamble drop the slots and play poker. Poker at least has skill, and you also know 100% of money is going back to players.

I only played Poker Stars, I dabbled with Full Tilt, but was dedicated to Pstars. I liked the large # of people in tourneys and the endless tourney options.

Someone mentioned Pstars software and the bad runs on it. I never got my mind wrapped up in conspiracy theory stuff on the rng. Ive seen bad runs online, live and in my sleep. I happens and it can be very harsh/ Whats even worse is were you go on that endless bad runs of suckouts that last days and weeks.
 

Roller_Jamie

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
Yes if your going to continue to gamble drop the slots and play poker. Poker at least has skill, and you also know 100% of money is going back to players.

The problem with this theory is that most people have a negative skill edge on the game. Therefore you are often better off playing Blackjack with a -2% edge as despite hating to admit most people would be at a much bigger advantage in a poker game.
 

JackTenOff

Webmaster
webmeister
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Location
uk
The problem with this theory is that most people have a negative skill edge on the game. Therefore you are often better off playing Blackjack with a -2% edge as despite hating to admit most people would be at a much bigger advantage in a poker game.

Exactly, the vast majority of poker players are loosing players in order to cover the cost of rake etc.
I've been playing poker online for years and make a smallish profit playing PLO/PLO8 Mtts as the field in these variants are much softer (at the moment)

Also to anyone that thinks Pokerstars is rigged just because you've seen constant runner runners, this is simply the nature of poker, if these runner runners never occured than surely that would be proof of rigged software, at the end of the day stars has no reason to rig their software and everything to lose if they were caught.
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
The problem with this theory is that most people have a negative skill edge on the game. Therefore you are often better off playing Blackjack with a -2% edge as despite hating to admit most people would be at a much bigger advantage in a poker game.


You're never better off playing any game with a 'house edge' over a skill game that if you have the ability to apply yourself well enough, you can be a winning player. The great thing about poker is that 'most people have a negative skill edge on the game', which means that if you're willing to put in a marginal amount of time studying, and be willing to work on your game on and off the felt, you should leapfrog 'most people'; and it won't take you very long depending on your ability and willingness to learn. It's not that hard to make money at poker, it's hard making A LOT of money at poker. And with that, it's pretty much impossible making any long-term profit by sticking with BJ by comparison.
 

BMWSTACK

Ueber Meister
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Location
US
You're never better off playing any game with a 'house edge' over a skill game that if you have the ability to apply yourself well enough, you can be a winning player. The great thing about poker is that 'most people have a negative skill edge on the game', which means that if you're willing to put in a marginal amount of time studying, and be willing to work on your game on and off the felt, you should leapfrog 'most people'; and it won't take you very long depending on your ability and willingness to learn. It's not that hard to make money at poker, it's hard making A LOT of money at poker. And with that, it's pretty much impossible making any long-term profit by sticking with BJ by comparison.

Agreed except for the making a lot of money part. I think you are able to make a lot online in tourneys. With a lot of time, bankroll, little bit of skill, multi table multi table multi table and it can happen.
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
Agreed except for the making a lot of money part. I think you are able to make a lot online in tourneys. With a lot of time, bankroll, little bit of skill, multi table multi table multi table and it can happen.



Yes, you CAN win/make a lot of money in online poker, but it's certainly not easy. You can win a tournament here and there with a little bit of skill, but if you're wanting to make steady profits, and of course, 'lots' of money, you're not going to be able to get by without a 'TON' of skill.


To put things into perspective, the financial differences between the MTT players at PokerStars who've ranked anywhere from 1st-to-3,000 vs those ranked 3,001-7,500 is quite large. The players in the 2nd group will show a good profit, but are probably not living overly well if that's their only source of income. Those 7,500 players, only make up .05% of the entire MTT field (approximately 1.5 million players so far at PokerStars in 2013). Of the 1.5 million ranked MTT players on PokerStars this year, I doubt that more than 7% of them will show a profit (even it the profit is just .01 cent) by December 31st.



Also, for those who're only playing NLHE MTTs, you have to realize that it's one of the worst ways to build an online poker bankroll. It's a very high variance game, you're going through massive fields, you have to dodge a lot stupidity that's going to get rewarded, and you're going to have to see too many coin flips in the micro/lower buy-in MTT's. The real money is in the 1st-3rd place finishes, that will help you make up for all of the time that you don't finish in the money, but very good players can go weeks/months without a top 3 finish.



If you want to make 'a lot' of money at Poker, it is NOT easy, but it's not impossible either.
 

Roller_Jamie

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
You're never better off playing any game with a 'house edge' over a skill game that if you have the ability to apply yourself well enough, you can be a winning player. The great thing about poker is that 'most people have a negative skill edge on the game', which means that if you're willing to put in a marginal amount of time studying, and be willing to work on your game on and off the felt, you should leapfrog 'most people'; and it won't take you very long depending on your ability and willingness to learn. It's not that hard to make money at poker, it's hard making A LOT of money at poker. And with that, it's pretty much impossible making any long-term profit by sticking with BJ by comparison.

I'd say "never" is a bit strong given all your caveats.

Remember just being better than average would still leave you -ev versus the rake. I'm not saying people can't win at poker (a small % clearly do), I'm just saying most people who play would be better off playing Blackjack. Most people can't be bothered to study and just want to gamble for a bit of fun. This is awkward as poker is clearly much more fun than Blackjack, but for that type of player probably the worst game to play from a longterm profit/loss perspective.
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
I'd say "never" is a bit strong given all your caveats.

Remember just being better than average would still leave you -ev versus the rake. I'm not saying people can't win at poker (a small % clearly do), I'm just saying most people who play would be better off playing Blackjack. Most people can't be bothered to study and just want to gamble for a bit of fun. This is awkward as poker is clearly much more fun than Blackjack, but for that type of player probably the worst game to play from a longterm profit/loss perspective.



I think 'never' isn't strong enough to emphasize or properly articulate how bad of an idea I think it is to play BJ over poker long-term.


If we're looking at blackjack being superior to poker, based on 'a long-term profit/loss perspective', we first need to dig a little deeper, and explore if there's any long-term profit playing BJ. There really isn't.


I would bet that there are more TV Poker Pros (a fragment of the overall pool of poker players profiting) than there are long-term BJ players who are profiting. Those long-term BJ players, probably aren't recreational players either.


If 7% of all of the ranked MTT players are going to profit at the end of each year, what's the percentage of BJ players profiting long term? It's certainly not 7%. Is it even 1% (doubtful)? Is it even 0.1%? Or is it closer to 0.001%? Or is that even being too generous?


If a recreational player, who's only playing for the sake of entertainment, who's okay with being in a scenario that over time they're likely going to be losing their initial deposit, there would be very little value in choosing BJ over poker. With most poker sites, you can buy-in to micro/lower-limit MTTs, and those tournaments - depending on the format - generally take a few/several hours to play out. Most $200 deposits playing BJ, even playing $2 per hand, are gone in anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours. Even if the player is fortunate enough to make a significant cash-out, the player is likely to lose it all on subsequent deposit(s) soon after.


Even though the recreational poker player is likely to fall into the pool of long-term losing players, most $200 deposits playing low buy-in MTTs, will probably last for weeks/months; also recognize that recreational poker players generally aren't playing more than 2 tables at a time.


If the recreational player doesn't want to study poker, there's still the possibility that they're cognizant enough to pick-up enough edges through observation and experience, and be good enough to profit. They're still up against a number of players who might be more knowledgeable, but who lack patience/discipline and are tilt-prone. With BJ, there's not all that much to know, so where's the upside?


The only scenario that makes sense, for a person to choose BJ over poker, is if they prefer playing BJ over poker (or can't stand playing poker), and they have no problems losing money while having a large enough life-roll.
 
Last edited:

Roller_Jamie

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
If 7% of all of the ranked MTT players are going to profit at the end of each year, what's the percentage of BJ players profiting long term? It's certainly not 7%. Is it even 1% (doubtful)? Is it even 0.1%? Or is it closer to 0.001%? Or is that even being too generous?

I was actually assuming 0% of Blackjack players profit longterm. I suppose you could count card counters or cheaters, but happy to concede no one beats the game - it's just fairly low variance and has a pretty tiny house edge.

If a recreational player, who's only playing for the sake of entertainment, who's okay with being in a scenario that over time they're likely going to be losing their initial deposit, there would be very little value in choosing BJ over poker. With most poker sites, you can buy-in to micro/lower-limit MTTs, and those tournaments - depending on the format - generally take a few/several hours to play out. Most $200 deposits playing BJ, even playing $2 per hand, are gone in anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours. Even if the player is fortunate enough to make a significant cash-out, the player is likely to lose it all on subsequent deposit(s) soon after.

Even though the recreational poker player is likely to fall into the pool of long-term losing players, most $200 deposits playing low buy-in MTTs, will probably last for weeks/months; also recognize that recreational poker players generally aren't playing more than 2 tables at a time.

Fair enough point on the relative stake levels, although pretty sure you can find micro stakes BJ online nowadays too. However I think most gamblers are more likely to have their stake levels near the "unhealthy" side of the spectrum (too high) as you don't get quite the same buzz otherwise. Therefore they are not going to sit playing $1 tournaments off a $200 deposit.


If the recreational player doesn't want to study poker, there's still the possibility that they're cognizant enough to pick-up enough edges through observation and experience, and be good enough to profit. They're still up against a number of players who might be more knowledgeable, but who lack patience/discipline and are tilt-prone.

I think you're mistaking this with 2003. The games are much tougher nowadays and a casual player just isn't going to turn a longterm profit - they're going to lose unless they put in effort greater than they can be bothered to do. They're just there to play!

so where's the upside?

I never said there was an upside, it's just a smaller downside. You will lose playing Blackjack, but your rate of loss will be slower due to a fixed, known tiny house edge. The negative edge playing poker is bigger.
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
I was actually assuming 0% of Blackjack players profit longterm. I suppose you could count card counters or cheaters, but happy to concede no one beats the game - it's just fairly low variance and has a pretty tiny house edge.



Fair enough point on the relative stake levels, although pretty sure you can find micro stakes BJ online nowadays too. However I think most gamblers are more likely to have their stake levels near the "unhealthy" side of the spectrum (too high) as you don't get quite the same buzz otherwise. Therefore they are not going to sit playing $1 tournaments off a $200 deposit.




I think you're mistaking this with 2003. The games are much tougher nowadays and a casual player just isn't going to turn a longterm profit - they're going to lose unless they put in effort greater than they can be bothered to do. They're just there to play!



I never said there was an upside, it's just a smaller downside. You will lose playing Blackjack, but your rate of loss will be slower due to a fixed, known tiny house edge. The negative edge playing poker is bigger.



I'm not mistaking this with 2003, and I'm well aware of how easy the games were (The Party Poker Days) after the 'Moneymaker Boom', and that the games will never be that soft again. Even the players who did well in '07 and '08, some of the biggest winners online, have struggled since ('ActionJeff' being one of the biggest names to have disappeared over the years), or they just eventually quit because they couldn't recapture their earlier successes (lost confidence & burn-out).


The bulk of $1.50 S&G's and mico MTT's, are made up of recreational players. 'Regulars', at least solid ones, generally won't be playing those unless they're rebuilding their bankrolls (and they won't stay there for long). I generally do player searches on sites like PokerProLabs or OfficialPokerRankings, and quite a few of the weekend warrior/Mon-Fri evening type players, profit if they're disciplined enough, consistently over the years. A 'few' in this case might not seem like many people, but it's a lot better than the 0% return that all BJ players are getting long-term (no matter their level of skill).


While it's true that recreational players probably play in games and stakes that aren't well proportional to their poker bankroll, I still think the majority of them are still playing $3-$7.50 S&G's, $2.20-$5.50 MTT's, and .02/.04 to .05/.10 cash games. I doubt that there are many recreational players who will deposit $215 on a Sunday, and only buy into the Sunday Millions, using up their entire deposit just to take 1 shot (most recreational players who play in the Sunday Millions or the Sunday Warm-Up, generally get in through micro-level satellites).


I do recall the Mapau Casino (group) using PlayTech software had .10 cent BJ, but even then, it's not like my dollar was stretched out for that long. If you're saying (and I agree) that no one is beating the game long-term, why on Earth would/should they chose BJ over Poker, when at least a percentage of people are 'winning' long-term? I get the argument that the 2% house edge in BJ looks nicer on paper than 10% rake on MTT buy-ins, but the reality is that you're taking a bigger hit going against that 2% edge. Remember, it's not 10% rake vs 2% rake, it's player vs field with 10% rake against player vs system that has a 2% edge over the long-haul. Personally, when I see people saying that the house 'only' has a 2% edge, I quickly think they don't quite understand what 'only' means; people in 'general', not a jab at you Roller_Jamie.


While I certainly wouldn't recommend playing slots, in my experience online, my dollar & gameplay was stretched a lot farther playing slots by comparison to my playing BJ; which I could never understand because the house edge is far greater for slots; meaning greater for the casino. Even when I had more of a 'gamblers' mentality (little care for bankroll management), even while not being good at poker, even while playing a high variance game like NLHE, I could make a $100 deposit last on a poker site longer than I could making +25 deposits at $200 each playing strictly BJ (a game that I knew how to play).


A $200 deposit playing BJ generally equates to minutes up to a few hours of fun (even though I now think it's boring as hell), whereas a $200 deposit playing poker means that I'll have days/weeks/months to look forward to; and I would have said the same thing when I was just a recreational player.


I agree that recreational players in general are playing for fun, and they're probably not looking to invest any time in studying when they're not playing, but they can still be learning as they're playing. It's not like they're purposely forcing themselves to not get better. Some people who're newer to poker, are sharp enough at picking-up the game while limiting (or avoiding) bad habits. I think a great number of the newer players, or even the regulars, play too many tables at once, never corrected their bad habits (plugged their leaks), and still couldn't be bothered to understand something as fundamentally important as positional play.


ABC players, who play tight, even though they're predictable because they only make moves with premium hands, generally play well because they aren't doing too much, they aren't outthinking themselves, they don't get fancy, they don't make stupid bluffs, they're attentive, they don't tilt as much because they don't have entitlement issues (like most regular/PROS do), and while they might not necessarily be playing to win (they 'believe' they're playing for the win but they're not necessarily putting themselves in position to get 1st-3rd place/final table finishes), they're still playing and having fun trying to survive and get into the money. Lower skilled players who play patiently, don't get out of line, play optimal cards, and have that survivors mentality, can be profitable players (I was going to say 'will' here but I need to curtail my writing in absolutes). They just won't be making any serious money, but they're in a MUCH better position than the highly skilled BJ player who's down +$5K at the end of each year.
 
Last edited:

Roller_Jamie

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
I'm not mistaking this with 2003, and I'm well aware of how easy the games were (The Party Poker Days) after the 'Moneymaker Boom', and that the games will never be that soft again. Even the players who did well in '07 and '08, some of the biggest winners online, have struggled since ('ActionJeff' being one of the biggest names to have disappeared over the years), or they just eventually quit because they couldn't recapture their earlier successes (lost confidence & burn-out).


The bulk of $1.50 S&G's and mico MTT's, are made up of recreational players. 'Regulars', at least solid ones, generally won't be playing those unless they're rebuilding their bankrolls (and they won't stay there for long). I generally do player searches on sites like PokerProLabs or OfficialPokerRankings, and quite a few of the weekend warrior/Mon-Fri evening type players, profit if they're disciplined enough, consistently over the years. A 'few' in this case might not seem like many people, but it's a lot better than the 0% return that all BJ players are getting long-term (no matter their level of skill).


While it's true that recreational players probably play in games and stakes that aren't well proportional to their poker bankroll, I still think the majority of them are still playing $3-$7.50 S&G's, $2.20-$5.50 MTT's, and .02/.04 to .05/.10 cash games. I doubt that there are many recreational players who will deposit $215 on a Sunday, and only buy into the Sunday Millions, using up their entire deposit just to take 1 shot (most recreational players who play in the Sunday Millions or the Sunday Warm-Up, generally get in through micro-level satellites).

Ha. If i knew we were doing a poker knowledge battle i'd have brought out the big guns! I'm in a weird spot here as have played poker for a long time, worked in the industry for a long time, and am more passionate about it that any other gambling game. So I'm far from wanting to bash it as I'm a big advocate, just try to be honest with people about their expectations.


A $200 deposit playing BJ generally equates to minutes up to a few hours of fun (even though I now think it's boring as hell), whereas a $200 deposit playing poker means that I'll have days/weeks/months to look forward to; and I would have said the same thing when I was just a recreational player.

This is what I disagree with most. You're still equating the play times with accepted bankroll requirements that most people playing have no idea about. If you deposited $200 to play Blackjack but never wavered from $0.25 bets then I think your deposit could also stretch over a pretty long time - similar to a novice poker player entering micro Sit&Gos.

In reality though people deposit $200 and play $10 a hand, and then probably go a bit nuts at some point when they lose a few in a row. Same with poker, a Saturday night player would probably enter a couple of $50 tournaments and then blow off the last $100 in a $1/2 game if they didn't go well.

Undoubtedly poker is the better game to play if you're smart. If you're willing to play within your means, learn and be patient there are still beatable games - although still with pretty low margins. Plus it's just more fun. However there are lots of people doing that already and taking it much more seriously. Plus most people don't want to grind a tiny game, they log on to have a gamble - where's the fun if there isn't a thrill if you win and a bit of hurt if you lose? Therefore they generally end up in games they can't beat longterm, and would actually lose even if there was no rake.

So we pretty much agree on the relative benefits (or not) of each game, but gonna stick to my guns on the general statement I made before:

"Most people who play poker would be better off playing Blackjack"
 

Roller_Jamie

Dormant account
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Location
United Kingdom
I doubt that there are many recreational players who will deposit $215 on a Sunday, and only buy into the Sunday Millions, using up their entire deposit just to take 1 shot (most recreational players who play in the Sunday Millions or the Sunday Warm-Up, generally get in through micro-level satellites).

Btw I'd consider myself a recreational player and I do this now and again - usually during the festivals. Life consumes too much time nowadays to play lots of poker, so if I do put aside time to play I wanna go for the huge score! :)
 

johnsteed

Dormant Account
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Location
N/A
Ha. If i knew we were doing a poker knowledge battle i'd have brought out the big guns! I'm in a weird spot here as have played poker for a long time, worked in the industry for a long time, and am more passionate about it that any other gambling game. So I'm far from wanting to bash it as I'm a big advocate, just try to be honest with people about their expectations.




This is what I disagree with most. You're still equating the play times with accepted bankroll requirements that most people playing have no idea about. If you deposited $200 to play Blackjack but never wavered from $0.25 bets then I think your deposit could also stretch over a pretty long time - similar to a novice poker player entering micro Sit&Gos.

In reality though people deposit $200 and play $10 a hand, and then probably go a bit nuts at some point when they lose a few in a row. Same with poker, a Saturday night player would probably enter a couple of $50 tournaments and then blow off the last $100 in a $1/2 game if they didn't go well.

Undoubtedly poker is the better game to play if you're smart. If you're willing to play within your means, learn and be patient there are still beatable games - although still with pretty low margins. Plus it's just more fun. However there are lots of people doing that already and taking it much more seriously. Plus most people don't want to grind a tiny game, they log on to have a gamble - where's the fun if there isn't a thrill if you win and a bit of hurt if you lose? Therefore they generally end up in games they can't beat longterm, and would actually lose even if there was no rake.

So we pretty much agree on the relative benefits (or not) of each game, but gonna stick to my guns on the general statement I made before:

"Most people who play poker would be better off playing Blackjack"


There's no question that most people don't have solid bankroll management skills. There will be people who'll - as you said - deposit $200, play two $50 MTTs and play $1/$2. Where we differ on that, is that more players - not to be confused with 'most' players - who are playing BJ will be playing $10 per hand while only starting with $200 (x20 bets), and relative to that, I don't there are many recreational poker players who would be putting so much on one bet or buy-in when there are so many cheaper/micro options to choose from; and are better values (you don't have to be good with bankroll management to understand good value).


I used to frequently make $50-$100 deposits to play BJ at Mapau (mentioned earlier), and played as low as .10 cents per hand. The money never lasted long, generally down to zero after a few hours. BJ players don't play 10 hands, then log-off, come back a week later and play 5 hands, etc. They play lots of hands, and generally don't stop until they at least double-up on their initial deposit, or go broke. You're going broke, even if you're fortunate enough to withdraw a few times, you're still going broke.


The majority (as close to 'all' as one can be without being 'all') of players for both BJ and poker, will regularly go on tilt (even if it's short-term/periodically); there are many forms of tilt. With BJ, at some point in a session, people get irritated when they lose a number of hands in a row, and start to increase their bets. Their balance is all there to be played with, so there's very little protection. With poker, players go on tilt - no matter the skill level - but if they start playing loose and stupid and lose, what are they losing? Their BI for the MTT or S&G. I think cash game players (with little discipline and weak bankroll management skills) would be closer to BJ players in terms of 'truly' gambling with their bankroll, because they can keep reloading until they lose their entire deposit/poker bankroll.


This thread was about MTTs though, and the majority of recreational poker player aren't depositing $200 on a Saturday, only to buy into 1-4 tournaments with the whole lot. Few would be doing that. But with BJ, that $200 isn't a 'fixed' buy-in, it's all sitting right there as you're playing, and it's very easy to go big or go bust. BJ is mostly about deposits vs withdrawals, but with poker, it's BI's:Bankroll. If you're losing at both, you're going to be losing much more quickly sticking with BJ.


We don't agree on the relative benefits of each game, because I don't think there's any benefit sticking with BJ. There's no upside sticking with a game where you're going to win 0% over long run, and there are TONS of downsides. It's not like I'd go to some high schools and advocate/promote that being a professional poker player would be a solid choice, because it sure isn't (although it's obviously great for the small percentage that are winning big and have a solid handle on how they're dealing with winning big). The reality of poker, is that most people (long-term) are losing. But we're talking about which game a recreational/regular player will be better off playing in the long run, and the answer is poker. The player at least has the opportunity to improve, if they're diligent and put in enough time improving their game (though not all people can pull that off even if they work hard).


7% winners > 0% winners​


I suppose that 'some' players are ahead at BJ, only because they're bonus whores. But by most online casino's T&C's, they aren't exactly recreational players either, in the spirit of whatever... You have to figure, that if they're ahead, they're also prone to breaking some term, or maybe close to being cut off from any future bonuses. A consistent winner would be heavily scrutinized, and would likely not be welcomed to play at that casino in the long-run.


Players who like to gamble, lose long-term while knowing that it's impossible to beat the house's 2% edge, are ok with the idea that there's no room for growth in how to improve once you're capped off very quickly at how to play perfect strategy, if you love the idea of all of that, then yes, perhaps Roller_Jamie is right, BJ is the route to go.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top